Hyman Rosen wrote:
The JMRI appeal's publicity of an enforceable artistic license doesn't seem to have dampened your enthusiasm or changed any of your rhetoric.
Why would it dampen *anything* ??? The CAFC has no binding authority to overrule the district court judge: "Accordingly, we deem it appropriate here to decide non-patent matters in the light of the problems faced by the district court from which each count originated, including the law there applicable. In this manner, we desire to avoid exacerbating the problem of intercircuit conflicts in non-patent areas. A district court judge should not be expected to look over his shoulder to the law in this circuit, save as to those claims over which our subject matter jurisdiction is exclusive. [Footnote omitted.] ... The freedom of the district courts to follow the guidance of their particular circuits in all but the substantive law fields assigned exclusively to this court is recognized in the foregoing opinions and in this case."; ATARI, INC., v. JS & A GROUP, INC., 747 F.2d 1422, 223 USPQ 1074 (Fed. Cir. 1984) (en banc). Judge White will enter judgment following the "old cases" that are controlling law in the Ninth Circuit "the law there applicable". He. He. Sincerely, Rjack :) _______________________________________________ gnu-misc-discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.gnu.org/mailman/listinfo/gnu-misc-discuss
